&w=3840&q=100)
Supreme Court ruling sparks confusion over US birthright citizenship
On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship read more
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision related to birthright citizenship led to confusion and calls to attorneys as individuals potentially impacted worked to understand a complex legal ruling with significant humanitarian consequences.
On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship.
This outcome has created more uncertainty than clarity around a right long interpreted as protected by the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried.
'There are not many specifics,' said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.'
She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality.
'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.'
Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court.
The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute.
'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said.
The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth.
'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on Friday.
Worried calls
Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling.
They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights.
'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said.
Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship.
'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.'
Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born.
'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety.
Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth.
She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order.
'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
16 minutes ago
- News18
How Emergency '75 Tried To Distort The Constitution Of India
It was this provision that the then-President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed depended upon while proclaiming the Emergency on the night of June 25, 1975. 'Internal disturbance" lent itself to a wide-ranging interpretation, including political and civil society movements. The original article contained no proviso that the proclamation of the emergency should be restricted to only affected parts of India. Thus it was proclaimed for the whole of India, even if that were not necessary. Also, in a glaring lapse of parliamentary procedure, President Ahmed's proclamation preceded the cabinet meeting approving the emergency. The proclamation of emergency, Kuldip Nayar informs, was signed at 11.45 pm on June 25, 1975. Indira Gandhi decided to call the meeting of the cabinet at 6 pm on June 26 after returning from the Rashtrapati Bhawan (The Judgement: Inside Story of the Emergency in India, P. 39-41). The proclamation was placed before the cabinet that met at 1, Safdarjung Road—the Prime Minister's official residence—for ex-post facto approval. The arrest of the opposition leaders, as well as the journalists, had gone on with ruthless efficiency in the intervening period. Article 352 has been altered since then, raising the constitutional bar against the sweeping imposition of emergency countrywide as in 1975. Paradoxically, even Indira Gandhi's government has a role in it through the 42nd amendment of the Constitution (1976). The 44th amendment brought in by the Janata Party's government (1978) further conditioned the imposition of emergency. Thus, from the constitutional viewpoint, the imposition of emergency became more difficult. Further, Article 359, which was related to the suspension of the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III during emergencies, no longer applied to Articles 20 and 21. This meant that the constitutional provisions with regard to protection in respect of conviction of offences, and protection of life and personal liberty, could not be abridged under any circumstances (even if other fundamental rights are suspended under emergency). These changes will be described ahead. II The events described as the causes of the Emergency '75, e.g. students' movement spearheaded by Jay Prakash Narayan, the Allahabad High Court's judgment declaring Indira Gandhi's election from Raebareli parliamentary constituency (1971) as void, etc, were at best immediate causes. Immediate causes only ignite the stockpile of explosive materials already present. The underlying cause of the Emergency '75 was Indira Gandhi's authoritarian style of functioning, which she equated with efficiency. This imbalanced the harmony conceived by the framers of the Constitution, between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. However, a more impersonal reading of the situation was that it represented a 'mid-life crisis of the Constitution" itself. Advertisement Indira Gandhi prioritised directive principles over fundamental rights. She vouched for 'parliamentary supremacy" in sorting out constitutional provisions (which, according to her, impeded the development of India) over judicial interpretation. She felt 'parliamentary supremacy" was necessary to prevent the Constitution from becoming atrophied. Parliament of India must have unlimited authority to amend the Constitution with a two-thirds majority as and when needed. There was a sudden acceleration in Constitution amendments during her second tenure. During the first two decades of its operation, the Constitution had been amended on 23 occasions. The Constitution (Twenty-third Amendment) Act, 1969, was notified on January 23, 1970, and came into force the same day. There was no other amendment during the rest of the year, which also witnessed the premature dissolution of the Fourth Lok Sabha. In the Fifth Lok Sabha elections, 1971, Indira Gandhi returned with a huge mandate. During this tenure, which included the Emergency '75 period, the Constitution was amended on 19 occasions. advetisement Her magnum opus enactment was the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, which had often been described as a mini-Constitution. Several of its unwelcome provisions were later neutralised through the 43rd and 44th amendments brought by the Janata Party government. Indira launched her strike with the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1971, which was later passed as the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971. Herein, her target was the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in the IC Golaknath and Ors v State of Punjab (1967) that had denied Parliament the right to amend the Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution even while exercising its powers under Article 368. It was the first time that any authority had held that any portion of the Constitution was impervious to amendment. Indira Gandhi naturally did not appreciate this judicial embargo and wanted to get rid of it at the earliest. However, she could not have the last laugh in the matter. advetisement In Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court laid down the concept of 'basic structure" of the Constitution that exercised a cap on Parliament's unlimited amending power. In effect, the 24th Amendment made the provisions of Article 13 subject to the provisions of Article 368 as invalid. The apex court held that the whole of Article 31 C, which abrogates for certain purposes the fundamental rights in Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution, is invalid. The court stated that while ordinarily it had no power to review a constitutional amendment, it could do so if the amendment destroyed or damaged the basic structure of the Constitution. Basic feature, however, is not a finite or quantifiable concept but depends on the merit of the case. III Less than five months after the Emergency '75 had been declared–on November 10, 1975–the Supreme Court constituted a 13-judge bench to hear a plea of the Government of India that the Keshavananda Bharati verdict should be overruled. It was evidently a quid pro quo by Chief Justice AN Ray, who had been elevated to the top position by Indira Gandhi, by superseding three senior-most judges, who resigned in protest (April 1973). Legal luminary Nani A Palkhivala filed a petition against this government plea on the ground that the Keshavananda Bharati judgment was delivered by a full bench of the Supreme Court with proceedings lasting for five months. It would set a wrong precedent whereby even this full bench's judgment might be reconsidered by another full bench in future. Moreover, the time was least opportune, when fundamental rights of the citizens stood abrogated, there was no effective opposition inside Parliament, and most important leaders of the opposition parties were languishing in jail. Nobody could write or speak anything in public that was not acceptable to the government (We, The People P. 187). Due to Palkhivala's forceful advocacy, the bench was dissolved within two days of argument, though nothing was reported in the media due to censorship. Yet, it was a victory, no doubt, which saved the prestige of the judiciary. Having failed to regain unlimited amending power through the legal route and dissatisfied with the tardiness of the parliamentary process, Indira Gandhi contemplated a change in the form of government. The French system appealed best to Indira. Her notorious younger son, Sanjay, overtly pitched for a presidential system, which gave all the power to one person, without the curb of Parliament (The Judgement, P. 114). The Swaran Singh Committee was set up by the AICC to consider suitable changes in the Constitution. Swaran Singh, the former external affairs minister, came out with proposals for extensive changes in the Constitution. 'It would have been worse if I were not there," Swaran Singh later told Kuldip Nayar, 'we buried the presidential system once and for all" (The Judgement, P. 148). The Swaran Singh Committee proposals became the basis of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1976, which, on enactment, became the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. It was an extensive piece of legislation that sought to (a) amend the Preamble (inserting the expression Socialist Secular) and the Seventh Schedule in addition to around 36 separate articles (b) substitute four articles with new ones, (c) insert two new Parts viz. IVA and XIVA and eleven new articles. Palkhivala describes the legislation as a 'devastating attack on the Constitution". It is a pity that the exercise was undertaken under the guise of the Emergency. When the Janata Party came to power as a result of the Sixth Lok Sabha elections, 1977, it enacted the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977, and the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, which aimed at reversing many of the capricious and detrimental amendments. By a legislative 'surgical strike", to use a present-day popular phrase, the Janata Party government removed the root cause of confusion that had exposed fundamental rights to repeated parliamentary assaults. The 44th amendment did away with 'Article 31: Compulsory Acquisition of Property" in Part III (Fundamental Rights). The Right to Property to another part of the Constitution viz. Part XII thus making it a legal right. The presence of Right to Property (which was actually about land acquisition by the government) in Part III had actually made Fundamental Rights unsafe. The problem was fixed for all times to come. This churning led to an important result. The imposition of emergency under Article 352 became more difficult and conditional. Both Indira Gandhi and the Janata Party contributed to the process. The 42nd amendment made it possible, or desirable, that any emergency was restricted to the affected parts of India rather than being imposed on the whole of India as provided in the original Constitution. The 44th amendment replaced the word 'internal disturbance" with 'armed rebellion". Thus, any civilian protest movement, even if it became violent, could not be used as an excuse to impose emergency. Article 352 (1) now reads as – 'If the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security of India or any part of the territory thereof is threatened, whether by war or external aggression, or armed rebellion, he may, by Proclamation, make a declaration to the effect in respect of whole of India or such part of the territory thereof as may be specified in the Proclamation. Through the 44th amendment, it now became necessary for both Houses of Parliament to approve the emergency by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting before the expiration of one month of Proclamation. Previously, the approval was by simple majority before the expiration of two months. Soli Sorabjee, the then Additional Solicitor General of India, made an insightful observation on the abnormalities in Indira Gandhi's approach to the Constitution amendment. Appearing on All India Radio Spotlight programme on September 23, 1978, Sorabjee stated: 'Our Constitution conceives of the State as existing for its citizens and not the citizens for the State. It recognises the infinite worth of every individual soul because it believes that in a world of variables, it is the individual alone who is timeless. Accordingly, our Constitution ordains that justice — social, economic and political, be achieved without stifling basic freedoms and the dignity of the individual. In other words, without depriving the people of India of their basic human rights." This priceless statement of Soli Sorabjee should be remembered by every government as the key to our constitutional ethos.
The Hindu
17 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Whither America?
Quo Vadis? While we were growing up, America was the El Dorado, where every dream could turn into a reality with effort and enthusiasm. Those who left for those pastures came home to tell us that the country was one of immense promise for the young and inspired. They spoke of the universities with their libraries, research facilities, state-of-the-art laboratories, and wide campuses with students streaming in from all parts of the world in search of knowledge. A veritable repository of learning and opportunity. America has been the land of the immigrant from the moment the first immigrants stepped off the Mayflower on to American shores. With imagination and creativity, grit and struggle, with encouragement and opportunity they carved out lives for themselves and contributed to the idea of America, and its ideals of freedom and diligence. Today, owing to the exclusionary vision of the powers-that-be, international students are barred from the universities, Green Card holders are under threat, and migrants are treated without humanity. So many individuals of different origins have made the country great in all fields of learning and culture and it is not worthwhile to go back to the drawing board. The country can only become greater with greater cooperation from all countries and more humane, inclusive policies. All progress rises out of mutual interdependence and the immigrant heritage is truly what makes America exceptional. It is disappointing that the very ideals of freedom of expression and fairness of opportunity that America stood guardian for since the founding fathers should be under siege now. What the celebrated writer Toni Morrison said, 'In this country American means white. Everybody else has to hyphenate,' seems to ring true today. It would do well for America to hark back to the voice of Benjamin Franklin who said, 'God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the Rights of Man may pervade all the nations of the Earth so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say, 'This is my country.'' While we are far away from this idealised world today where every country is zealously guarding its turf, it would be right to realise the world would be more liveable if we can think in terms of mutual respect and dependence. sudhadevi_nayak@
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
BJP women wing holds mock Parl on 50 years of Emergency
1 2 Kanpur: The Bharatiya Janata Party's women's wing in the Kanpur region organised a grand mock Parliament event at the Kanpur University auditorium. The programme began with the lighting of a lamp by the chief guest, Rajya Sabha MP Rekha Sharma, regional president Prakash Pal, minister Rajni Tiwari, and legislator Pratibha Shukla. On this occasion, a special exhibition based on the Emergency was also inaugurated by Rekha Sharma and Prakash Pal. Addressing the inaugural session, they said that on June 25, 1975, the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi undermined the Constitution, crippling all major democratic institutions--the legislature, executive, judiciary, and the media. Thousands of opposition leaders were imprisoned under MISA and DIR, and censorship was forcibly imposed on the media. They emphasised the need for women to understand this history and question the moral grounds of those who cite the Constitution today. Prakash Pal questioned whether the Congress still justifies the Emergency or acknowledges it as a violation of the Constitution. As 50 years have passed, the public deserves to know whether Congress leaders will apologise if the Emergency was wrong or explain the rationale behind its imposition. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Ai probleme cu picioarele umflate vara? Acești pantofi sunt soluția! Cumpără acum Undo The first session of the mock parliament commenced, with legislator Pratibha Shukla, acting as the prime minister, presenting a proposal stating, "The Emergency was the darkest chapter in Indian democracy and requires serious discussion in the House. " The entire assembly supported the proposal by voice vote. In the role of the opposition leader, Women's Commission member Poonam Dwivedi argued that the Emergency was imposed under Article 352, but political motives were predominant. She questioned the decision's legitimacy and criticised the ruling party sharply. Both sessions of the mock parliament saw intense debates between the ruling and opposition sides. The ruling side included Uttar Pradesh minister Rajni Tiwari, legislators Om Mani Verma, district council president Swapnil Varun, legislators Manisha Anuragi, Poonam Sankhwar, former state vice-president of the women's wing Ranjana Upadhyay, Farrukhabad district council president Monika Yadav, block heads Vijay Ratna Tomar, and Anuradha Awasthi, among others. On the opposition side, Women's Commission members effectively presented their arguments and questioned the ruling party's policies. Throughout the sessions, there were several disruptions, which were managed with restraint and firmness by mayor Pramila Pandey, acting as the speaker in the first session, and legislator Neelima Katiyar in the second session. At one point, the proceedings were adjourned.
